Does Violence in the media produce violence in the real world? (University Essay)

Does violence in the media produce violence in the real world?
A university assessment of mine which focuses on violence in 'the media' and violence in the real world and whether the two are related.

Submitted:Feb 25, 2013
Reads: 4,300
Comments: 1
Likes: 0

Does violence in the media
produce violence in the real world?

Whether violence depicted in the
media causes violence in the real world has been a topic of
debate for a number of years. Nowadays the argument seems more
prevalent as different types of media are all around us every
moment of the day, along with ever increasing reports of violence
around the world, both abroad and at home. Violence in the news,
television and film, along with violence in video games are
usually the main areas of focus when it comes to this debate.
Sociologists tend to lean towards the view that media reflects
society, rather than producing behaviours that are not already
established within society. However, it is also argued that
exposure to violent media can cause violent behaviour in the real
world. Those who prefer a restricted meda would support the view
that media violence does produce violence in the real world, for
obvious reasons. In Graeme Burton's book Media and Society:
Critical Perspectives (2010), he says,

' Some research has suggested
that childhood viewing of violence may be related to aggressive
behaviour in adulthood. However, the evidence is not conclusive,
given the range of socializing influences that may produce such
an effect.'

As media influences society in a
number of ways, it is easy to follow on from that by saying media
violence influences people to behave violently. While this
sometimes may be correct there are a number of arguments against
this line of thought.

It is important to establish the
main arguments for either side of this debate when asking the
question 'does violence in the media produce violence in the real
world?' Firstly, some argue that because a certain violent crime
has been perpetrated, the perpetrator has been influenced by the
fact that they happen to be a fan of a certain violent video
game, film, TV programme etc. This argument fails to take into
account the fact that the majority of 'fans' of violent media do
not become violent. This argument also encourages another
question to be asked; do people consume violent media because
they are violent? Or does exposure to violent media make them
violent? If the answer to the first question is yes, then
violence in the media does not cause violence in the real world
as people are already violent before they are exposed to violent
media. If the answer to the first question is no, which seems
more likely, then there has to be other causes for people to want
to consume violent media such as enjoyment and the 'thrill' of
being frightened or shocked by the violence. If the answer to the
second question is yes, then obviously violence in the media does
produce violence in the real world. If the answer to the second
question is no, then other unrelated causes are, in general,
behind violence in the real world.

When this topic is discussed in
the mainstream, violent video games seem to be the focus of the
debate, ignoring violence on television, especially news
programmes. This is seemingly because of the numerous cases of
violence which have been blamed on violent video games. One case
in the United States, where two students killed 13 other students
in 1999, blames the violent video game Doom for the
students' violent behaviour as they were fans of the game and had
apparently played it hours before the massacre took place
(Massey, 2009). More recently, the Sandy Hook massacre has been
blamed by some on violent video games and indeed one town in
Connecticut plans to 'turn in their violent video games,
which will later be broken and ultimately incinerated'
(Tassi, 2013). The accusation that violent video games are to
blame in these situations brings us back to the question; do
people consume violent media because they are violent or does
violent media make them violent?

While considering these questions
it is also important to discuss another aspect of violent mass
shootings which have been blamed on violent video games.
Psychiatric drugs arguably have a large impact on the violent
nature of a number of perpetrators in the notorious mass murders
which have taken place in schools, cinemas etc.

According to the same article, the
Columbine High School shooters were on some sort of psychiatric
drugs at the time of the shooting, prescription drugs were found
among the belongings of the Virginia Tech shooter and also
'Kip Kinkel was withdrawing from Prozac and had been
prescribed Ritalin when he murdered his mother and stepfather and
then shot 22 classmates...' (Bragdon, 2012.) The Columbine
School massacre is notoriously blamed on the video game Doom and
so-called 'angry' music such as Marilyn Mason, however the fact
that the shooters were on psychiatric drugs which have known side
effects of 'homicide and violence related behaviours' indicates
that the drugs, rather than the violent media, although possibly
a combination of both, is to blame for the violent behaviour of
the shooters. As the shooting at Virginia Tech is also blamed
somewhat on video games and the shooter was on prescribed
psychiatric drugs, it seems as if these psychiatric drugs have a
large part in a person becoming violent. The reported side
effects of the drugs and the combination between these drugs and
the exposure to violent media seem to be the cause of the
unnatural behaviour of the perpetrators.

However, that does not mean to say
that violence in the media produces violence in the real world.
There is a vast majority of people who enjoy horror films,
violent TV programmes and video games but do not go out and
commit atrocities such as the ones mentioned. This indicates that
the psychiatric drugs play a major part in producing violence, or
at least they have in these cases. While some horror movie fans
or violent video gamers may become violent because of the media
they consume, it is not appropriate to connect every act of
violence to violence in the media.

Another plausible cause for
violent behaviour is exposure to real life violence, especially
when an individual is young and impressionable. It can be argued
that if a person were to see real life violence around him (or
her) such as domestic abuse from a young age, this can impact
negatively (or indeed positively) on the child's adult behaviour.
A negative side effect could be that exposure to a large amount
of real life violence may produce an attitude in later life which
sees violence as normal and acceptable. Bill Clinton, former
president of the United States once said:

'The more children see of
violence, the more numb they are to the deadly consequences of
violence.'

This suggests that children will
gradually see violence as a normal part of life if they are
continuously exposed to either violent images or violence in the
real world. It also suggests that a sense of apathy towards
violence grows as an individual becomes more accustomed to seeing
violence on a consistent basis. This doesn't necessarily support
the argument that media violence produces violence in the real
world, rather that it can produce an acceptance towards violence
if there is a constant exposure to it, both in the media and the
real world. However a positive side effect to exposure to
violence at a young age could be that it deters an individual
from violent behaviours in later life as they realise the
consequences of violence.

Despite this view, it can be
argued vehemently that evidence for violent media producing real
life violence is inconclusive. Graem Burton cites Buckingham
(2003) in his book Media and Society: Critical
Perspectives. Buckingham states,

'Despite decades of research,
the proof of a connection between violent television and
aggressive behaviour is at best weak...'

If it is the case that violent
media produces violence in the real world, then logically the
rates of violent crimes should be in accordance with the amount
of media violence, and as media in all shapes and forms is
increasingly violent, the number of violent crimes should rise
with that trend. However, according to the Office for National
Statistics (2012):

'The latest police recorded
violence figures show a reduction in volume of 7
percent...'

CNN in the United States also
shows the levels of violent crime decreasing:

'Violent crime in the United
States fell for the fifth consecutive year.' (Frieden,
2012.)

As the levels of violent crime
have decreased in recent times when violence in the media is
still at a significant level, this supports the view that
violence in the media does not produce violence in the real
world, even though individual cases of violence are often blamed
on media violence.

Even though the media does affect
society in different ways it is not proven that violence in the
media produces violence in the real world and seems unlikely due
to the simple fact that many people who 'enjoy' violent media are
not violent themselves. Now that this is established, it is
important to discuss why individuals do become violent, whether
it is because of a poor upbringing or unfortunate circumstances
where violence has been seen as acceptable, whether it is due to
psychological problems or the use of psychiatric prescription
drugs which have side effects including thoughts of killing
others, aggression and suicidal and homicidal tendencies or
indeed because of exposure to violent material combined with any
of the above reasons for violence. There is not one sole reason
for violence in the real world. It is however possible that
violent media can influence an already violent person into
committing violent acts, although as sociologists would argue,
media does not produce new behaviours which are not already
established in an individual or society as a whole.

The question 'does violence in the
media produce violence in the real world' is one which is too
large and with too many possible answers to condense into a 'yes'
or 'no' answer. It is more appropriate to suggest that in some
cases media violence may well produce violence in the real world
because a constant exposure to violence may well disrupt any
natural aversion to it. However, in other situations there are a
vast range of causes of violence such as the ones listed above.
Following on from this, the mainstream media concerned with
newspapers and news programmes sometimes seems to be obsessed
with putting the blame of violence onto either violent video
games and/or 'aggressive' music. The complete lack of
acknowledgment that violent and distressing images on the news
and in newspapers can have just as negative an effect on
individuals as an exposure to other forms of violent media shows
that these news outlets do not actually believe that violent
media produces violence in the real world. Instead they produce a
scapegoat to appease 'consumers' who want a definite cause and
answer instead of accepting the fact that there might not be one
complete cause for violence in the real world.

Consequently, in general, violence
in the media overwhelmingly does not cause violence in the real
world, however in some cases violence in the media can influence
a person to act out premeditated violence.